Name: Jack
E-Mail: cybernoir@aol.com
Date: 11/6/99 4:00 PM
Subject: Trade Secrets & the Internet


What happens to the trade secrets in those expensive boutique amps once the
schematic is posted on the 'net? The court opinion in the following case tells
you:

Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17833 (E.D.
Va. November 28, 1995):
The Court cited Religious Technology Centers v. Netcon On-Line
Communications, Inc., No. C-95-20091 (N.D. Calif., September 22, 1995)
that "posting works to the Internet makes them 'generally known' at least to the
relevant persons interested in the new group." Once a trade secret is posted on
the Internet, it is effectively part of the public domain, impossible to retrieve.
Although the person who originally posted the trade secret on the Internet may
be liable for trade secret misappropriation, the person who merely downloads
Internet information cannot be liable for trade secret misappropriation
because there is no misconduct involved in interacting with Internet. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Name: tboy
E-Mail: tboy@ampage.org
Date: 11/6/99 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Trade Secrets & the Internet


Good one Jack! Where'dja find it?

Now I'm wondering just exactly what is meant by "misappropriation." I would
take it to mean something on the order of breaking the famous Dumble secrecy
agreement, or obtaining secret information by some illegal means, but the way
the quote is worded, it seems to suggest that the act of posting such material on
the net may itself be "misappropriation."

--tboy 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Name: Jack
E-Mail: cybernoir@aol.com
Date: 11/7/99 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Trade Secrets & the Internet


    "Now I'm wondering just exactly what is meant by
    'misappropriation.' I would take it to mean something on the
    order of breaking the famous Dumble secrecy agreement, or
    obtaining secret information by some illegal means..."

It was also recently ruled that "dumpster diving" was misappropriation, even
if the trade secret material was discarded without being shredded, since
access to the dumpster involved criminal trespass.

There must be a secret before there can be a trade secret agreement. From
what I've read, just changing component values or making minor alterations to
well-known circuits would not qualify for protection.

-JACK 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Name: Don Symes
E-Mail: c-d-symes@worldnet.att.net
Date: 11/7/99 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Trade Secrets & the Internet


     "the act of posting such material on the net may itself be
     'misappropriation.'"

It is - the person posting the trade-secret information to the public domain
without owning the right to do so has committed an actionable act.

I'm no lawyer, but I expect that even if you buy a Dumble amp ninteenth hand,
the design and execution of the circuit are trade secrets. Trade secrets can
have a separate life from copyrights and patents.

Jack, since you seem to have the ability to do legal research and not go blind,
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me how and where I'm wrong. (please) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Name: Jack
E-Mail: cybernoir@aol.com
Date: 11/7/99 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Trade Secrets & the Internet


    "I'm no lawyer, but I expect that even if you buy a
    Dumble amp ninteenth hand, the design and
    execution of the circuit are trade secrets. Trade
    secrets can have a separate life from copyrights
    and patents".

Unless there is something in the design that is unusual or
difficult to duplicate, there is no trade secret and the
non-disclosure agreement would not be enforceable. Minor
changes in well known tone networks or different
component values is easily duplicated, even without tracing
the circuit.

From a recent court ruling:
"If information can be readily duplicated without involving
considerable time, effort or expense, then it is not a secret.
Computer Care v. Service Syst. Enter. Inc., 982 F.2d 1063,
1072 [25 USPQ2d 1020] (7th Cir. 1992). Simply stated,
there cannot be trade secret if the alleged secret can be
easily duplicated. Filter Dynamics Intern., Inc. v. Astron
Battery, Inc., 19 Ill.App.3d 299, 311"

-JACK
N.E.2d 386, 399 [183 USPQ 102] (2nd Dist. 1974). 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *